Talk:Ok (volcano)

Volcanoes Low‑importance

	Volcanoes portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Volcanoes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of volcanoes, volcanology, igneous petrology, and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VolcanoesWikipedia:WikiProject VolcanoesTemplate:WikiProject VolcanoesWikiProject Volcanoes articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Iceland

	Iceland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iceland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iceland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IcelandWikipedia:WikiProject IcelandTemplate:WikiProject IcelandIceland articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Move?[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved: per discussion Ground Zero | t 18:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok (glacier) → Ok (volcano) – http://icelandreview.com/news/2014/01/17/ok-glacier-not-ok says that its icecap has just about disappeared and is only 0.7 square kilometers in size as at January 2014. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. All of the coverage of this issue concerns how this block of ice is, or used to be, "Iceland's smallest glacier." The area of the shield recently fell below the official glacier minimum, so Ok has been plutoed. As for the volcano, it is not even mentioned in the article linked to above. Clodhopper Deluxe (talk) 03:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
support - Ok deserves an article per WP:GEOLAND. There are plenty of WP:RS on Ok, even focusing entirely on its glacial demotion. The question is: what's in the parenthetical. "Glacier" seems to be out, and "volcano" seems reasonable to me. de Bivort 17:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about "ice shield" or "former glacier"? Clodhopper Deluxe (talk) 02:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It should be (volcano). It's referred to as such in the geological literature: [1] de Bivort 02:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: User:Clodhopper Deluxe has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

This is NOT a move review ...[edit]

... but one would be fully justfied. It seems not to have occurred to any of the discussants that unless you are a member of the siblinghood of glacier trekkers no one but glacier counters cares about that minimum. There may be parameters including area, snofall rate, heat-flow densities above and below, thickness, and more that contribute to degree of interest in a glaciier, but the idea that an icelandic statistician stopping paying attention bcz of one parameter changes what the title of our article should be, is ridiculous. In fact, whether the glacier still has any ice at will only slowly affect the degree to which its significancereflects the place's role in the past, the ongoing present, and the anticipable future. We keep updating facts and changes, but we are far from being Nowpedia.
--Jerzy•t 01:20, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]